FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-18-2012, 11:04 AM
Wookey
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

+++ Ian Jackson [2012-07-13 23:48 +0100]:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Recommends for metapackages"):
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:32:19PM -0600, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Tańo wrote:
> > > > Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
> > >
> > > No. At most it breaks *related* software.
> >
> > Exactly, that's why it's the "gnome-core" package that's RC-buggy, not
> > network-manager. Unless someone thinks a desktop environment's core
> > function is to mess with the network, that is.
>
> I think this discussion became circular and repetitive and useless
> quite some time ago.
>
> It is plain that the gnome-core maintainers are not going to agree to
> make this change. Therefore people who want the change made should
> either (a) shut up and put up with the status quo (b) refer the matter
> to the TC.

I am someone who employs one of the various workarounds to get the gnome
software package set _without_ network-manager (I generally insert an
exit 0 into network manager's init script (which is ugly), and install wicd)

I don't use n-m because it doesn't play nice with usb0 gadget
networking.

I was just about to refer this to the tech ctte myself when I found
that it had already been done.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681834

It seems to me that there are a range of possible solutions, and
despite the length of this thread I don't think all have been
mentioned, or certainly not summarised:

1) network-manager could be recommends: instead of depends: in
gnome-core

2) An alternate meta-package could be provided for gnome-desktop
without network-manager.

3) Network manager should have an /etc/default/ ENABLE/DISABLE switch
(as wicd does)

4) gnome-core should be set to depend on network-manager | wicd (or
some network-chooser virtual package)

All of those are possible solutions which will satisfy varying numbers
of people. They are not all mutually exclusive and are listed
approximately in order of utility in terms of solving the issue (IMHO).

I do believe that at least one of the above should be done for wheezy.

Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120718110436.GG16745@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk">htt p://lists.debian.org/20120718110436.GG16745@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
 
Old 07-21-2012, 10:07 PM
Tollef Fog Heen
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

]] Wookey

> 3) Network manager should have an /etc/default/ ENABLE/DISABLE switch
> (as wicd does)

[...]

> I do believe that at least one of the above should be done for wheezy.

Is there any reason whatsoever to have the setting in both /etc/default
and /etc/rcN.d?

I really wish we could get rid of the NO_START=1, ENABLE=NO and similar
stuff in /etc/default. Either that, or we standardise on one variable
that everything has to support and we get rid of /etc/rcN.d completely.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87eho4g445.fsf@xoog.err.no">http://lists.debian.org/87eho4g445.fsf@xoog.err.no
 
Old 07-22-2012, 09:43 AM
Wouter Verhelst
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:04:36PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> 3) Network manager should have an /etc/default/ ENABLE/DISABLE switch
> (as wicd does)

I'm not a network-manager fan myself, but please do not do this.

ENABLE/DISABLE switches are *ugly*, as their effect is not limited to
boottime changes. Especially in case of packages who ship with such a
variable set to disable by default, this is very annoying.

If you don't want an initscript to run at boottime, just move the
symlink from S* to K*, and that'll work -- also across package updates.

--
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:

pi zz a


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120722094314.GK14953@grep.be">http://lists.debian.org/20120722094314.GK14953@grep.be
 
Old 07-22-2012, 11:50 AM
Vincent Lefevre
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

On 2012-07-22 11:43:14 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> ENABLE/DISABLE switches are *ugly*,

I disagree. ENABLE/DISABLE switches have some advantages: they are
more readable than a set of symlinks, allow all the settings of some
service to be grouped in a single place, and can be managed more
easily by VCS software.

> as their effect is not limited to boottime changes. Especially in
> case of packages who ship with such a variable set to disable by
> default, this is very annoying.

The user may not want a service he didn't request or he hasn't
configured yet to be enabled by default. For instance, some packages
may be installed automatically (due to dependencies), or one may want
the client, but not the server. Such services should be disabled by
default.

--
Vincent Lefčvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120722115058.GA24810@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr">http://lists.debian.org/20120722115058.GA24810@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr
 
Old 07-22-2012, 01:11 PM
Roger Leigh
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:50:58PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-07-22 11:43:14 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > ENABLE/DISABLE switches are *ugly*,
>
> I disagree. ENABLE/DISABLE switches have some advantages: they are
> more readable than a set of symlinks, allow all the settings of some
> service to be grouped in a single place, and can be managed more
> easily by VCS software.

While this is true, it's not the way that sysvinit works. Other
systems such as systemd may provide such facilities natively, but
initscripts do not. If you're going to use sysvinit, then you
should just use update-rc.d foo disable to disable it.

> > as their effect is not limited to boottime changes. Especially in
> > case of packages who ship with such a variable set to disable by
> > default, this is very annoying.
>
> The user may not want a service he didn't request or he hasn't
> configured yet to be enabled by default. For instance, some packages
> may be installed automatically (due to dependencies), or one may want
> the client, but not the server. Such services should be disabled by
> default.

This is not the general consensus--by default daemons are started if
the package is installed. This has been already debated extensively
many times over. Irrespective of whether your personal opinion is
that this is a good or bad thing, that's just the way it is at present.


Regards,
Roger

--
.'`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
`- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120722131141.GH25141@codelibre.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120722131141.GH25141@codelibre.net
 
Old 07-22-2012, 01:26 PM
Michael Biebl
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

On 22.07.2012 11:43, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:04:36PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
>> 3) Network manager should have an /etc/default/ ENABLE/DISABLE switch
>> (as wicd does)
>
> I'm not a network-manager fan myself, but please do not do this.
>
> ENABLE/DISABLE switches are *ugly*, as their effect is not limited to
> boottime changes. Especially in case of packages who ship with such a
> variable set to disable by default, this is very annoying.

Completely agreed. Those ENABLE switches need to die.
As long as I maintain this package, it will certainly not get such a switch.

> If you don't want an initscript to run at boottime, just move the
> symlink from S* to K*, and that'll work -- also across package updates.

Right, or just use update-rc.d <service> disable, which basically does
just that.


--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
 
Old 07-22-2012, 01:53 PM
Vincent Lefevre
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

On 2012-07-22 14:11:41 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:50:58PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > I disagree. ENABLE/DISABLE switches have some advantages: they are
> > more readable than a set of symlinks, allow all the settings of some
> > service to be grouped in a single place, and can be managed more
> > easily by VCS software.
>
> While this is true, it's not the way that sysvinit works. Other
> systems such as systemd may provide such facilities natively, but
> initscripts do not. If you're going to use sysvinit, then you
> should just use update-rc.d foo disable to disable it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with enhancing the way that
sysvinit works, as long as the user can still use the update-rc.d
method.

> > The user may not want a service he didn't request or he hasn't
> > configured yet to be enabled by default. For instance, some packages
> > may be installed automatically (due to dependencies), or one may want
> > the client, but not the server. Such services should be disabled by
> > default.
>
> This is not the general consensus--by default daemons are started if
> the package is installed. This has been already debated extensively
> many times over. Irrespective of whether your personal opinion is
> that this is a good or bad thing, that's just the way it is at present.

You're wrong. This is not true for all packages. It seems that
it's up to the maintainer to choose whether the daemon is run
by default or not.

Anyway the Debian Policy Manual doesn't seem to
* forbid ENABLE/DISABLE switches,
* require that daemons should be run by default.

--
Vincent Lefčvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120722135313.GA14862@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr">http://lists.debian.org/20120722135313.GA14862@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr
 
Old 07-22-2012, 02:25 PM
Michael Stapelberg
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

Hi Vincent,

Quoting Vincent Lefevre (2012-07-22 15:53:13)
> I don't think there's anything wrong with enhancing the way that
> sysvinit works, as long as the user can still use the update-rc.d
> method.
There is: update-rc.d is a defined interface which works with sysvinit
and other init systems (soon). The ENABLE/DISABLE-mechanism is specific
to only one init system and it’s not consistent between various
packages.

> Anyway the Debian Policy Manual doesn't seem to
> * forbid ENABLE/DISABLE switches,
> * require that daemons should be run by default.
It doesn’t, but dh_installinit starts init scripts by default (which has
no effect in case of ENABLE/DISABLE switches of course).

Best regards,
Michael


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120722142515.388.13182@midna.zekjur.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120722142515.388.13182@midna.zekjur.net
 
Old 07-22-2012, 02:40 PM
Wouter Verhelst
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:50:58PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-07-22 11:43:14 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > ENABLE/DISABLE switches are *ugly*,
>
> I disagree. ENABLE/DISABLE switches have some advantages: they are
> more readable than a set of symlinks,

That's just an opinion (one which I don't share)

> allow all the settings of some service to be grouped in a single
> place,

No. On the contrary.

Services are currently configured in one or two places:
- in /etc/rc*.d (whether they run or not)
- in the service-specific configuration file (the behaviour of the
service)

/etc/default is a third place, not a "one and only" place. Using it to
specify things like command-line parameters is probably fine. Using it
to *override* some other configuration is stupid.

> and can be managed more easily by VCS software.

At least git supports symlinks just fine. Which VCS system are you using
that doesn't? Sounds like you may just need to switch.

Additionally, personally I prefer using config management systems for
that kind of thing.

> > as their effect is not limited to boottime changes. Especially in
> > case of packages who ship with such a variable set to disable by
> > default, this is very annoying.
>
> The user may not want a service he didn't request or he hasn't
> configured yet to be enabled by default.

policy-rc.d is meant to help with that. Disabling stuff through
/etc/default doesn't help those users, since they *still* need to use
policy-rc.d to disable those services that *don't* come disabled by
default.

> For instance, some packages may be installed automatically (due to
> dependencies), or one may want the client, but not the server. Such
> services should be disabled by default.

Maybe, but not through a file in /etc/default.

It may make sense to make update-rc.d support disabling services by
default, a feature which it currently doesn't have, since many people
seem to think that'd be a good thing. While I disagree, I can understand
the argument. But trying to work around that possible limitation by
introducing a whole new layer of inconsistent configuration files which
are supported by some initscripts but not by others is just plain silly.

I'm seriously considering advocating a release goal for wheezy+1 to get
rid of these stupid ENABLE variables. Their only purpose is to annoy
people.

--
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:

pi zz a


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120722144048.GQ14953@grep.be">http://lists.debian.org/20120722144048.GQ14953@grep.be
 
Old 07-23-2012, 01:41 AM
Vincent Lefevre
 
Default solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

Hi Michael,

On 2012-07-22 16:25:15 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Quoting Vincent Lefevre (2012-07-22 15:53:13)
> > I don't think there's anything wrong with enhancing the way that
> > sysvinit works, as long as the user can still use the update-rc.d
> > method.
> There is: update-rc.d is a defined interface which works with sysvinit
> and other init systems (soon). The ENABLE/DISABLE-mechanism is specific
> to only one init system and it’s not consistent between various
> packages.

OK, if Debian plans to support other init systems, that's fine.

> > Anyway the Debian Policy Manual doesn't seem to
> > * forbid ENABLE/DISABLE switches,
> > * require that daemons should be run by default.
> It doesn’t, but dh_installinit starts init scripts by default (which has
> no effect in case of ENABLE/DISABLE switches of course).

I don't understand what you mean here. For instance, in case of wicd,

# Automatically added by dh_installinit
if [ -x "/etc/init.d/wicd" ]; then
update-rc.d wicd defaults >/dev/null
if [ -n "$2" ]; then
_dh_action=restart
else
_dh_action=start
fi
invoke-rc.d wicd $_dh_action || exit $?
fi
# End automatically added section

and the switch will be honored.

--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120723014144.GA7408@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr">http://lists.debian.org/20120723014144.GA7408@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org